Pathways to socialism.

[Uncensored2008]

The way the private sector is turning to automation for everything there will eventually either have to be socialism or kill the excess people not serving the mechanized economy. Far too many kinds of jobs are becoming extinct and not enough new ones are being created.

You are espousing the plans of the left, slaughter a huge portion of the population.

BUT in civilized people are self-regulating. Note how Japan, Europe, and White America all have declining populations? This is the response to automation and the lower need for workers. Leftists will engage in genocidal slauget at every opportunity, it is the nature of the left to kill. (driven by the utter lack of respect for human life.) But developed societies simple have less children. The more educated people become, the less children they have. The USA is importing tens of millions of third world peasants, who breed without constraint, but if the white population is isolated then the picture emerges of a populate that is spontaneously reducing in response to lower needs for menial labor. The same is true in Japan and Europe.

 

[CultureCitizen]

The decide whether we spend our time and energy making blue jeans or bombs. It's this decision making power that socialists want brought under the power of government

Ahm... I thought I had made a clear distinction in the OP between socialism and state capitalism.
This is specally true when you have a dictatorship.

"State capitalism" is called fascism in the English language. It isn't capitalism at all. How could it be?

Nor is it socialism. How could it be ?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Nor is it socialism. How could it be ?

It is state control of the means of production, the definition of socialism.

 

[dblack]

The decide whether we spend our time and energy making blue jeans or bombs. It's this decision making power that socialists want brought under the power of government

Ahm... I thought I had made a clear distinction in the OP between socialism and state capitalism.

It's still quite vague to me. You say you want government to 'sponsor' social ownership of some businesses. You elaborated with examples, stipulating that we would need mechanisms to ensure social control. That's just government, right?

Just won't answer the coercion question.

Here's an example: Ole Bill owns a widget factory on the edge of town. Everyone in town agrees to join a collective where social ownership of the town's enterprises ensures peace, prosperity, sweetness and light. It's such a good idea that everyone happily volunteers to take part--except one.

Ole Bill refuses to relinquish control of his widget factory which was, up until now, his private property.

What Certain mechanisms will be in place in order to ensure true social ownership?

What is the town going to do to Ole Bill?

There are some options :
a) They could buy Ole Bill's competition ( unless, Ole Bill has a monopoly).
b) If it is a public company they could buy shares in the stock market.
c) They could kickstart a new company and ... stop buying from Ole Bill.

So by this accounting, what you're talking about actually requires no new state policies. Would that be accurate?

 

[williepete]

What happens to an individual when he refuses to comply with the hive mentality?

Look to history.

If this collective utopia could work it would have worked hundreds of years ago and would still be in place.

Whenever an idealist or a politician promotes some new system that will alleviate all the ills of humanity and usher in a bright new world, ask him why it already hasn't been done. You'll be answered with a blank stare and the sound of crickets.

 

[CultureCitizen]

The decide whether we spend our time and energy making blue jeans or bombs. It's this decision making power that socialists want brought under the power of government

Ahm... I thought I had made a clear distinction in the OP between socialism and state capitalism.

It's still quite vague to me. You say you want government to 'sponsor' social ownership of some businesses. You elaborated with examples, stipulating that we would need mechanisms to ensure social control. That's just government, right?

Just won't answer the coercion question.

Here's an example: Ole Bill owns a widget factory on the edge of town. Everyone in town agrees to join a collective where social ownership of the town's enterprises ensures peace, prosperity, sweetness and light. It's such a good idea that everyone happily volunteers to take part--except one.

Ole Bill refuses to relinquish control of his widget factory which was, up until now, his private property.

What Certain mechanisms will be in place in order to ensure true social ownership?

What is the town going to do to Ole Bill?

There are some options :
a) They could buy Ole Bill's competition ( unless, Ole Bill has a monopoly).
b) If it is a public company they could buy shares in the stock market.
c) They could kickstart a new company and ... stop buying from Ole Bill.

So by this accounting, what you're talking about actually requires no new state policies. Would that be accurate?

There are several levels of "collective ownership" or cooperativism.
One in which the company is owned by the employees ( this is common although it doesn't constitute the mayority of the corporations).
Other one in which the company is "owned" by the customers ( this is the case of Grameen bank).

For some other companies it might happen that the first two options are not available in that case having it as a SOE might be the only available option. In this case is when some barrier must be enabled to avoid that the persons holding office use the SOE to their beneffit ( and if so , he gets punished).

No , I think appart from improving the financial education of citizens ,controlling high speed transactions in the stock market , little else is needed... Maybe giving one share to every citizen (their choice)as a birthright and access to micro-loans would be the only things I would add.

 

[CultureCitizen]

What happens to an individual when he refuses to comply with the hive mentality?

Look to history.

If this collective utopia could work it would have worked hundreds of years ago and would still be in place.

Whenever an idealist or a politician promotes some new system that will alleviate all the ills of humanity and usher in a bright new world, ask him why it already hasn't been done. You'll be answered with a blank stare and the sound of crickets.

If he is working in a company he usually get's fired for not being able to work in a team... though that means he probably has the elements to become an entrepreneur.

Now , just a tiny detail , I am not suggesting that every single company has to be collectively owned, just those which are required to cover the basic working of society:
Food, water, energy, healthcare , education.

 

[World Savior]

Socialism has a 100% fail rate, what's the fucking point of discussing it?

Nope, sorry, China is socialist. Many European countries are socialists. Russia is socialist. Wanna try again?

 

[CultureCitizen]

Nor is it socialism. How could it be ?

It is state control of the means of production, the definition of socialism.

No , it is not. That's why I wrote down the definition in the OP.

"Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy."

What you describe is state capitalism, which more closely resembles China.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Socialism has a 100% fail rate, what's the fucking point of discussing it?

Nope, sorry, China is socialist. Many European countries are socialists. Russia is socialist. Wanna try again?

EdwardBaiamonte is correct, you don't know how wrong you are

 

[williepete]

We choose to obey laws. We cannot be forced to obey an elite few who think they know what's best for us. You can't force people to act against their best interest. You'll never be able to hire enough police.

Observation from a visiting Chinese "Marxist Economist":

 

[dblack]

The decide whether we spend our time and energy making blue jeans or bombs. It's this decision making power that socialists want brought under the power of government

Ahm... I thought I had made a clear distinction in the OP between socialism and state capitalism.

It's still quite vague to me. You say you want government to 'sponsor' social ownership of some businesses. You elaborated with examples, stipulating that we would need mechanisms to ensure social control. That's just government, right?

Just won't answer the coercion question.

Here's an example: Ole Bill owns a widget factory on the edge of town. Everyone in town agrees to join a collective where social ownership of the town's enterprises ensures peace, prosperity, sweetness and light. It's such a good idea that everyone happily volunteers to take part--except one.

Ole Bill refuses to relinquish control of his widget factory which was, up until now, his private property.

What Certain mechanisms will be in place in order to ensure true social ownership?

What is the town going to do to Ole Bill?

There are some options :
a) They could buy Ole Bill's competition ( unless, Ole Bill has a monopoly).
b) If it is a public company they could buy shares in the stock market.
c) They could kickstart a new company and ... stop buying from Ole Bill.

So by this accounting, what you're talking about actually requires no new state policies. Would that be accurate?

There are several levels of "collective ownership" or cooperativism.
One in which the company is owned by the employees ( this is common although it doesn't constitute the mayority of the corporations).
Other one in which the company is "owned" by the customers ( this is the case of Grameen bank).

For some other companies it might happen that the first two options are not available in that case having it as a SOE might be the only available option. In this case is when some barrier must be enabled to avoid that the persons holding office use the SOE to their beneffit ( and if so , he gets punished).

No , I think appart from improving the financial education of citizens ,controlling high speed transactions in the stock market , little else is needed... Maybe giving one share to every citizen (their choice)as a birthright and access to micro-loans would be the only things I would add.

Yeah. I'm still not seeing much of a distinction between an SOE and state socialism. Overall, it just sounds like you're proposing a mixed economy, with whatever industries deemed 'necessary' being run by government, or, if you prefer "the people".

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I've started this thread to explore the different paths and obstacles that might appear while switching to socialism. But before engaging into any discussion it is necesary to establish a working definition.

"Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy."

Here it is important to distinguish "social ownership" and "state ownership". While it can be argued that when the state owns a company it does so having in mind the best interest of the society, it is often the case that the company is used to advance the agenda of a group of people holding office. Certain mechanisms must be in place in order to ensure true social ownership is ensured , like transparency and democracy. In any case, when the state has the control of several companies, we might be facing a scenario of state capitalism and not of socialism.

From my viewpoint cooperatives are the closest form of social ownership to date.
Can you think of any other ways to achieve social ownership?
What would be the drawbacks of having a large number of companies organized in such a fashion?
Do you think such arrangement is compatible with the free market ?
Share your thoughts.

Yes... yes.

Soft Socialism... but who doesn't love utopia, right?

Want socialism or collective ownership? It's real simple, you support the principles that assure the means for the individual to freely exchange goods and services to the mutual profit of both parties, with minimally invasive costs set upon them to cover the cost for their government.

Then, the sum of their numbers will present you with: Collective ownership.

As with most things in nature, the key to success is counter intuitive... Those groping for Social-ownership, never fail to end up with State-ownership.

And those who respect the responsibilities that sustain their Freedom, end up owning their culture; meaning social ownership.

 

[williepete]

"I've started this thread to explore the different paths and obstacles that might appear while switching to socialism."

To the OP, switching to socialism is something in his/her head that is occurring and he/she is concerned about obstacles that might impede the pathway.

Let us make sure the obstacles are large and overwhelming because any person who can read understands clearly where the pathway to socialism leads. Two choices at the gulag: Guard or prisoner.

 

[LeftofLeft]

The way the private sector is turning to automation for everything there will eventually either have to be socialism or kill the excess people not serving the mechanized economy. Far too many kinds of jobs are becoming extinct and not enough new ones are being created.

The way the private sector is turning to automation for everything there will eventually either have to be socialism or kill the excess people not serving the mechanized economy. Far too many kinds of jobs are becoming extinct and not enough new ones are being created.

I am sure there were same cries when the AUTOmobile replaced the horse and buggy, the airplane impacted rail travel, and the PC replaced the typewriter. It's called evolution. People adapt.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I've started this thread to explore the different paths and obstacles that might appear while switching to socialism. But before engaging into any discussion it is necesary to establish a working definition.

"Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy."

Here it is important to distinguish "social ownership" and "state ownership". While it can be argued that when the state owns a company it does so having in mind the best interest of the society, it is often the case that the company is used to advance the agenda of a group of people holding office. Certain mechanisms must be in place in order to ensure true social ownership is ensured , like transparency and democracy. In any case, when the state has the control of several companies, we might be facing a scenario of state capitalism and not of socialism.

From my viewpoint cooperatives are the closest form of social ownership to date.
Can you think of any other ways to achieve social ownership?
What would be the drawbacks of having a large number of companies organized in such a fashion?
Do you think such arrangement is compatible with the free market ?
Share your thoughts.

I like the idea of cooperative ownership of utility companies.
Near here, there is an electrical co-op.....A few years ago, we had a pretty devastating ice storm. I am served by a large energy company. We were fortunate in that damage here was limited. Electrical service was restored in 14 hours. Unfortunately other parts of the area were without service for up to a week.
Now, the co-op near here? All of their customers were restored within 6 hours.

 

[CultureCitizen]

with whatever industries deemed 'necessary' being run by government, or, if you prefer "the people"

There is a crucial distinction between "the people" and "the government". One which I hope people begin to understand.

"I've started this thread to explore the different paths and obstacles that might appear while switching to socialism."

To the OP, switching to socialism is something in his/her head that is occurring and he/she is concerned about obstacles that might impede the pathway.

Let us make sure the obstacles are large and overwhelming because any person who can read understands clearly where the pathway to socialism leads. Two choices at the gulag: Guard or prisoner.

How is the above image related to cooperatives and community owned enterprises?

Market freedom ... not so great for everyone

 

[thereisnospoon]

The way the private sector is turning to automation for everything there will eventually either have to be socialism or kill the excess people not serving the mechanized economy. Far too many kinds of jobs are becoming extinct and not enough new ones are being created.

For jobs to be created, there has to be something for people to do.

 

[dblack]

with whatever industries deemed 'necessary' being run by government, or, if you prefer "the people"

There is a crucial distinction between "the people" and "the government". One which I hope people begin to understand.

Me too! Let's talk about that. What is that distinction, in your view?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Socialists should be ashamed of themselves. Get a job and pay your own bills losers.

go fund your own war on drugs; losers.

Nice idiotic retort.